Autopilot on undivided roads back to 10 km/r over limit!

[Drone Flyer]

The latest update now has AP working at up to 10 km/hr over the posted speed limit on divided roads.
Thanks Tesla, for listening!
Now if you could just leave the icons at the top of the screen always visible, that would be great!
Oh and did I mention it would be nice to have waypoint mapping?
This feature would be very helpful as would notifications of how many cars are plugged in at an upcoming Super charger!

 

[wayner]

This feature would be very helpful as would notifications of how many cars are plugged in at an upcoming Super charger!

I am not a heavy user of SCs but I don't think this is a problem at Canadian SCs - I don't know that I have ever seen more than 50% usage. A bigger issue is the number of chargers Out of service - like the thread here about Barrie. Even if all 8 spots are full there is a good chance that one will open up in 5-10 minutes, but it can take days or weeks to fix OOS units.

 

[DMC-Orangeville]

I am not a heavy user of SCs but I don't think this is a problem at Canadian SCs - I don't know that I have ever seen more than 50% usage. A bigger issue is the number of chargers Out of service - like the thread here about Barrie. Even if all 8 spots are full there is a good chance that one will open up in 5-10 minutes, but it can take days or weeks to fix OOS units.

From my observations of SC in Canada - average number of stalls in use (including me)
Comber: 2
Woodstock: 2
Lawrence: 6-7 ( may include some service vehicles)
Barrie: 3
Port Hope: 2
Kingston: 4
Cornwall: 1 (I've never seen another Tesla there)
Montreal: 2 (original site on Ferrier)

Based on this, that 50% may be correct, but some of the key SC are busier (Kingston, Montreal, Toronto)

 

[Drone Flyer]

Mistake in title. Should have read, "Undivided" highways.
Now I have your undivided attention! LOL!

 

[Doug_G]

Mistake in title. Should have read, "Undivided" highways.
Now I have your undivided attention! LOL!

Fixed!

 

[mknox]

I know I'm the odd man out here, but I personally don't think this is a good idea. This means that autopilot is not obeying the rules of the road by ignoring speed limits. (Funny to me how many people see those signs that say MAXIMUM 100 km/h and interpret them to mean MINIMUM 100 km/h). If you want to go around the laws, disengage and drive manually.

 

[ecarfan]

I agree. Enabling autonomous driving at speeds greater than the posted speed limit can be interpreted as Tesla not only enabling law breaking but actively promoting it. I would argue that using AP is different from using conventional cruise control because there is much less driver involvement with AP.

That said, the reality is that the vast majority of drivers routinely exceed posted limits by 5-10mph (depending on how high the posted limit is) and, at least where I live, they do not get ticketed for that. So if Tesla restricted AP use to the posted limit, many owners would be very unhappy.

I can see it both ways. Glad I am not the person making AP design decisions. It's a brave new world...

 

[sandpiper]

I know I'm the odd man out here, but I personally don't think this is a good idea. This means that autopilot is not obeying the rules of the road by ignoring speed limits. (Funny to me how many people see those signs that say MAXIMUM 100 km/h and interpret them to mean MINIMUM 100 km/h). If you want to go around the laws, disengage and drive manually.

I disagree. I'm still the one setting my speed. I'd only be okay with this if Ontario implemented reasonable speed limits.

If Ontario were truly serious about having people obey the limit they could easily go back to photo radar systems or checkpoint systems. But they don't do that because there's an absurd unwritten set of rules in play in Ontario:

1. No government can change the speed limits to something reasonable, for fear of being called baby killers. So we'll keep these absurdly low speed limits.

2. To make driving practical, the government will make a truly half baked effort at enforcement of the limits. Keep below 20 over (the actual, effective limit) and you'll almost never get a ticket. Go over that and you'll usually get a break of about 15-20 km/hr.

3. Please don't drive the actual written limit in good conditions. Anybody who does so (especially on the 400 series) is a road hazard.

 

[green1]

Now if only the car had any clue as to which roads were "undivided" or what the "speed limit" actually is...

Or they could simply not add limits AFTER we pay for our car....

 

[sandpiper]

I agree that that's another issue. But in fairness to Tesla that's an infrastructure issue. I expect that we're going to see some sort of foolproof method for electronically signalling speed limits at some point. Our current infrastructure is optimized for human drivers.

At some point, we're likely going to have high precision GPS mapped roads, with a centrally controlled database that will include for things like stop signs, lights, speed limits, etc. That would make auto-driving truly practical, providing some redundancy for the on-board visual system.

 

[green1]

I agree that that's another issue. But in fairness to Tesla that's an infrastructure issue.

No, it's not an infrastructure issue. Tesla chose to limit the speeds based on incorrect data. That was their choice. The alternative was NOT REMOVING FUNCTIONALITY FROM THE CAR AFTER PURCHASE!

Beyond that, we know it's not infrastructure, it's their broken data. Drive through BC some time. every time you pass a speed limit sign (except on the coquihalla) the speed limit reflects correctly on the dash, then a few km down the road where there are NO signs at all, it pulls the wrong info from the database. Tesla REFUSES TO FIX THE DATABASE.

So Tesla has, by their own choice, added a restriction, based on data that they know to be inaccurate, with no process in place to fix the data. And they've done this AFTER PURCHASE.

That's just unacceptable on every level.

 

[sandpiper]

No, it's not an infrastructure issue. Tesla chose to limit the speeds based on incorrect data. That was their choice. The alternative was NOT REMOVING FUNCTIONALITY FROM THE CAR AFTER PURCHASE!

Beyond that, we know it's not infrastructure, it's their broken data. Drive through BC some time. every time you pass a speed limit sign (except on the coquihalla) the speed limit reflects correctly on the dash, then a few km down the road where there are NO signs at all, it pulls the wrong info from the database. Tesla REFUSES TO FIX THE DATABASE.

So Tesla has, by their own choice, added a restriction, based on data that they know to be inaccurate, with no process in place to fix the data. And they've done this AFTER PURCHASE.

That's just unacceptable on every level.

 

[sandpiper]

I disagree. I'm still the one setting my speed. I'd only be okay with this if Ontario implemented reasonable speed limits.

If Ontario were truly serious about having people obey the limit they could easily go back to photo radar systems or checkpoint systems. But they don't do that because there's an absurd unwritten set of rules in play in Ontario:

1. No government can change the speed limits to something reasonable, for fear of being called baby killers. So we'll keep these absurdly low speed limits.

2. To make driving practical, the government will make a truly half baked effort at enforcement of the limits. Keep below 20 over (the actual, effective limit) and you'll almost never get a ticket. Go over that and you'll usually get a break of about 15-20 km/hr.

3. Please don't drive the actual written limit in good conditions. Anybody who does so (especially on the 400 series) is a road hazard.

I'm puzzled as to the disagreements. I simply stated the way that it effectively works. How many people does anybody see in good traffic on the 407 driving 100 or below?

 

[mknox]

3. Please don't drive the actual written limit in good conditions. Anybody who does so (especially on the 400 series) is a road hazard.

I got a few "disagrees" and I knew I would. But I really disagree with this statement. The Maximum on 400-series highways is 100 km/h not the "Minimum". The hazard, if any, is created by those disregarding the rules of the road. In fact, the legal minimum speed is somewhere around 70 km/h.

It is important, regardless of your speed, to keep right except to pass which is something I always do. It is crazy how many cars I see just cruising in the center passing lane, and even in the left passing lane. Many cars pulling trailers, trucks and so forth drive at or below the maximum limit and I see no "hazard" created by those vehicles.

 

[sandpiper]

I got a few "disagrees" and I knew I would. But I really disagree with this statement. The Maximum on 400-series highways is 100 km/h not the "Minimum". The hazard, if any, is created by those disregarding the rules of the road. In fact, the legal minimum speed is somewhere around 70 km/h.

It is important, regardless of your speed, to keep right except to pass which is something I always do. It is crazy how many cars I see just cruising in the center passing lane, and even in the left passing lane. Many cars pulling trailers, trucks and so forth drive at or below the maximum limit and I see no "hazard" created by those vehicles.

The second point is a different argument, and I agree with this. I'd be quite at peace with more rational, more strictly enforced limits and also strictly enforced laws around proper use of lanes on multi-lane highways.

Compared to other areas around the world, Ontario has very low limits, given the quality of our major highways. And of course that's why they're universally ignored. 120 seems to be more typical internationally, and that makes sense given that traffic flows at 120/130 on the 400 series highways anyway.

Speed limit - Wikipedia

 

[11thIndian]

The irony is that as autonomous driving comes to more and more cars, the concept of "passing lanes" will become more irrelevant. Drivers won't care if they save 15 minutes if they can be doing something else, and in general HWY speeds during "rush hour" times would go up. Unfortunately, until it becomes ubiquitous (in, like, 40 years) autonomous vehicles on major highways will have to deal with regular drivers.

 

[Lon12]

I see most of you are from Ontario. Just be warned that we have photo radar and it tickets us when you are 10 km/h above the limit.
Not sure how I know that....

 

[Drone Flyer]

I see most of you are from Ontario. Just be warned that we have photo radar and it tickets us when you are 10 km/h above the limit.
Not sure how I know that....

I guess i won't go to Alberta then! LOL!

 

[sandpiper]

I see most of you are from Ontario. Just be warned that we have photo radar and it tickets us when you are 10 km/h above the limit.
Not sure how I know that....

I'm actually okay with that. As long as the speed limits aren't stupid, as they are here. I see that it's a little higher out there.

 

[mknox]

The second point is a different argument, and I agree with this. I'd be quite at peace with more rational, more strictly enforced limits and also strictly enforced laws around proper use of lanes on multi-lane highways.

Compared to other areas around the world, Ontario has very low limits, given the quality of our major highways. And of course that's why they're universally ignored. 120 seems to be more typical internationally, and that makes sense given that traffic flows at 120/130 on the 400 series highways anyway.

Listen, I get that some folks want to drive faster and couldn't care less about the increased pollution/carbon emission from doing so (in and ICE) and to a lesser extent in an EV (which isn't 100% carbon free) never mind the added risks of collision, and that is fine. I'm happy to drive no more than the maximum posted limit and save some electricity while I'm at it. (I've changed all my home's light bulbs to LED to save a bit too, but that pales in comparison to how much electricity I save by driving a bit slower). As I say, I stay to the right unless I'm passing.

But I still feel that Tesla allowing their automation to ignore traffic laws is not a good idea.